More money for obesity research?

"For decades, experts at CDC, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), U.S. Department of Education, the Administration for Children and Families, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have been researching and developing strategies to prevent and address obesity among children and adults nationwide." (The State of Obesity, 2018)

And apparently their strategies aren't working except to ask for more money to fund more research to pay more government workers. 1999-2000 30.5% adults obese; 2015-2016 39.6% obese. I don't find that impressive. Don't cut our budgets--we need that money to address obesity! To fail bigger!

Looking through the research, I see. . . racism is embedded.

• The differences between blacks and whites are called INEQUITIES.
• The differences between black males and black females (more likely to be obese) are called differences.
• The differences between Asian American men (more likely to be obese) and Asian American women are differences.
• The differences between Asians and whites (more likely to be obese) are called differences.
• The differences between rural (more likely to be obese) and urban are called differences.
• The differences between first generation and second generation (twice as likely to be obese) are called differences.
• The differences between Filipino Americans (more likely to be obese) and Chinese Americans are called differences.

Did the federal government create the obesity epidemic?

Lots of pretty charts in this report, but it looks to me like obesity rates began soaring with the War on Poverty, about the same time that marriage rates began dropping. Hmm. More government is supposed to solve what government created?

http://healthyamericans.org/assets/files/TFAH-2017-ObesityReport-FINAL.pdf

JAMA: State Should Seize Fat Children from Parents

I haven't seen the July 13 issue of JAMA yet, but it contains an opinion piece that suggests obese children might need to be removed from their parents' home. Yes, and that's because the state has done such a wonderful job in those areas already assigned to it.

Jonathan Bean, who I believe teaches at Ohio State, writes: "Disclosure: I was a “super-obese” teenager at 320 lbs. My brothers were normal weight. My parents urged me to limit my diet but I ate secretly. Then, on my own, I lost 140 lbs in a single year and have kept if off for 28 years (I’m 10 lb over my 21 year old weight). That was my decision. Imagine if the know-it-alls in DCFS had put me in foster care, supervised by my new rotating parents and caring social workers. Yes, children, this is our Brave New World fast in the making."

JAMA: State Should Seize Fat Children from Parents | The Beacon

I think they are panicking because childhood obesity has leveled off in the last decade, and they fear a funding source might be drying up. Maybe you should write the author and give him a piece of your mind. Sounds like he needs it. David S. Ludwig, MD, PhD, Children's Hospital, 300 Longwood Ave, Boston, MA 02115. (david.ludwig@childrens.harvard.edu).

Law and Order and the Soda Police

Yes, this is the bias that drove me crazy about Law and Order--any version of it. The criminal was never a minority, or the homeless person, or the career criminal scum bag--the criminal was usually, 1) a religious, pious person, 2) the spouse, 3) a policeman or a judge or 4) a family member. Ripped from the headlines--oh yeah!

[Law and Order: SUV, Oct. 13] "Not only is she [the dead victim] guilty of killing children with soda, she’s also guilty of building gyms for underprivileged communities in her corporation’s name. Good thing she’s dead! In true Law & Order form, the episode has a (predictable) twist: it seems that Lindsay wasn’t killed for her soda-peddling after all, but over a personal grudge. Yet the real message of the episode is clear: soda is the new tobacco. It’s the monster in the closet; it’s coming for your children; and it’s to blame for whatever’s wrong with your life.

ObamaTV on NBC: ‘Law & Order: Soda Police’

Pork and gravy for the obesity problem

Yesterday while making a salad for the meal to take over to my daughter's home where a beehive of activity is taking place to build a deck, I had a flashback to my childhood. The after school snack. A chunk of cabbage. Crisp, crunchy and sweet, and probably from Mom's garden. I'm sure kids would turn up their noses at vegetable snacks today, but that's what we got. Desserts were for meal time, and that might be something I call "warm milk cake" because I don't think it had a name, and it certainly didn't have icing.

For years women's magazines have been sounding the alarm on the obesity problem--a lot of good that has done. Personally, I think the current feminist movement which started the back to the workplace shift for women in the 1970s, which grew an entire casual eating out restaurant industry-- take-out, pizza, and fast food empire--because women weren't home at 5 or 6 p.m. to cook, is the source of many of the problems we have in 2010 with over weight children, who then become over weight adults.

There are medical problems--some genetic--that can cause obesity, such has metabolic syndrome, but even these can be controlled or helped with a simple plan of ELMM. Eat less move more. It's darn hard work, but not a penny from the government pork and gravy train is needed. Here's a common sense tip from a government program called Letsmove dot gov:

•Keep fruits and vegetables within reach; store cookies, chips and ice cream out of immediate sight.

•Schedule specific family activities at regular times. Instead of saying "we need to be more active," plan a 30-minute neighborhood walk after dinner three evenings a week.

•When shopping, park the car as far from the store as possible. Make it a game: Count the steps as you walk to the store -- and next time, try to park even farther away.

When my mother sent us outside to play, I don't think it was a plan to be more active, but it worked. As did mowing the lawn, pulling weeds, riding our bicycles to friends' homes, and running around outside at school recess, even in extremely cold weather. Ice cream? We didn't have a freezer, so if we had it, it was a very special event.

But where's the money in common sense?

Longest "failure to report" I've seen

When people report their research in JAMA, they are required to include any compensation or financial gain they might have received that could conceivably influence the outcomes. There was an article on obesity published in February on gastric banding in adolescents vs lifestyle intervention by Dr.Paul E. O'Brien of Australia. It seems the gastric banding group won. But in the June 16 issue, there is the "correction" for the financial disclosure agreement, he having said he had no conflicts of interest. I'd say it was a big one.

1. He received compensation as the Natioal medical director of the American Institute of Gastric Banding.
2. He's written a patient information book on the topic from which he derives financial benefits.
3. In another study on obesity he had grants from an obesity research center, of which he is the director.
4. He "inaccurately reported" (i.e., lied) about compensation received as a speaker.
5. He regrets any lack of transparency that his failure may have created.

I think this guy has a future in politics. Also, it shows JAMA really doesn't check much on this stuff.

First Lady criticized for discussing her children’s weight in public

Bloggers and talkers left and right (Glenn Beck mentioned it, and he seems overly concerned about his own weight, IMO) are saying she did a bad thing, using her own children as an example of poor eating. Well, I don’t think it was any worse than complaining to blue collar workers in Ohio (during the campaign) about paying back her college loans and the cost of her kids’ piano lessons. That was a 21st century "let them eat cake" speech.

"We went to our pediatrician all the time," Obama said. "I thought my kids were perfect -- they are and always will be -- but he [the doctor] warned that he was concerned that something was getting off balance."

"I didn't see the changes. And that's also part of the problem, or part of the challenge. It's often hard to see changes in your own kids when you're living with them day in and day out," she added. "But we often simply don't realize that those kids are our kids, and our kids could be in danger of becoming obese. We always think that only happens to someone else's kid -- and I was in that position."

Obama said the doctor suggested she first look at her daughters' body mass index (BMI). The minor changes she subsequently made in their daily habits, Obama said, made all the difference.

What is important about childhood obesity is ignored in this story.

1) No one knows what the “right” BMI is for children--those studies haven‘t been done. It's age, it's ethnicity, it's genes, it's gender, it's growth spurts. I was almost my adult height and weight by the end of 7th grade. One girl in the class got her growth spurt after high school graduation. At our 20th reunion I didn't recognize "Pee Wee" because he was over 6' and quite filled out. If Obama's pediatrician mentioned BMI, then it was observational, not research;

2) studies don't show any change in obesity (except upward) with government intervention--and believe me it has been tried many times with the CDC and foundations throwing billions at it, and not just our country;

3) it‘s frequent dieting that seems to be dangerous;

4) older people who carry extra weight live longer than thin people with terrific fitness scores or obese people;

5) studies do show that low-fat diets for children are bad for brain development, especially in infancy.

CDC in 2004 announced that obesity was the nation’s number two killer (cigarettes were #1) causing 400,000 deaths a year. It's own data can't find an association between BMI and cancer. But oops. Their own data indicated the true average is 112,000 per year. But never you mind--it’s a fabulous draw for tax money.

Here’s some cost figures for “fighting” obesity from the 2010 budget as broken out by program at JunkFoodScience.blogspot.com even though there is no evidence these programs and partnerships work, prevent disease, or reduce mortality.

● The budget for obesity programs under the Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity department totals $44.4 million; which includes “developing innovative partnerships,” such as with the Healthy Eating Active Living Convergence Partnership and with the Produce for Better Health Foundation (where the CDC co-chairs the National Fruit and Vegetable Alliance). PBH was honored at the Weight of Nation conference, by the way, with an award for its work “advancing policies and environmental strategies to prevent and control obesity.”

● The $62.47 million budget for REACH, which targets minority communities for intervention, is part of its Healthy Communities Program which, it says, is an integral part of CDC’s response to the epidemics of obesity and chronic disease.”

● $7.3 million is for the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.

● $12.3 million for Genomics is described as “opportunities for public health and preventive medicine, which support the President‘s Healthier U.S. Initiative and the Secretary‘s Personalized Health Care Initiative.”

● $65.99 million is budgeted for diabetes surveillance, prevention and education (such as its Diabetes Primary Prevention Initiative which is “focused on approaches that identify people with pre-diabetes... to adapt lifestyle behaviors aimed at reducing modiable risk factors for type 2 diabetes” – i.e. obesity).

● $341 million is for cancer prevention and control programs, such as WISEWOMAN (Well-Integrated Screening and Evaluation for Women Across the Nation, which targets low-income women “to improve diet, physical activity, and other lifestyle behaviors to prevent, delay, and control cardiovascular and other chronic diseases”) and NCCCP (National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program, which “provide a blueprint to encourage healthy lifestyles, promote recommended cancer screening guidelines and tests,…[and] education programs about cancers or their associated risk factors”).

● The $62.78 million budget for School Health is focused on physical activity, nutrition and tobacco use prevention and other priority health risk behaviors, most notably obesity and type 2 diabetes (which it says “has become increasingly prevalent among children and adolescents as rates of overweight and obesity rise”) and funds 22 state agencies “to focus on reducing chronic disease risk factors such as tobacco use, poor nutrition, and physical inactivity” and funds 29 NGOs (non-governmental organizations) to “promote healthy behaviors for the nation’s youth.”

● $22.8 million is for its Healthy Communities program for “community leaders and public health professionals to equip these entities to effectively confront the urgent realities of the growing national crisis in obesity and other chronic diseases in their communities.”

Go to her page and check the links. The scientific evidence she writes, "often from CDC statistics itself, fails to support any of these programs. That’s why it’s never been more important for us to remember those fallacies of logic and to think and look deeper than the headlines."

This is my favorite "anti-anti-fast food" photo. Peasant women in a Romanian village which doesn't have running water let alone processed food or a McDonald's!

All this talk about food has made me hungry. Time out for Ritz and cheese. Also, did you know that Gerberding, Bush's head of the CDC, is now head of vaccines for Merck? What do you bet they'll develop a vaccine to fight obesity. She certainly laid the ground work during her years at CDC.

It takes a Romanian village

Matthew Dalton has an article in the WSJ today about fighting obesity, and why the "village" approach (i.e., government control) is needed. Except the fat women were gathered in a Romanian village. I don't know why they think these Romanian women didn't have "walk to school" days when they were children or that they should stay away from those Big Macs down the street.

"Instead of hoping that individuals can muster the self-discipline on their own to avoid processed foods, fast food and days without physical exercise, the idea is that governments must actively work to change environments and reduce the menu of harmful options available in everyday life.

As a result, hundreds of towns in Europe and elsewhere have adopted a version of this strategy, aimed particularly at preventing children from becoming overweight and obese. They hired dietitians to counsel children and their families in schools, organized walk-to-school days, hired sports educators and built new sporting facilities. The U.S. government, meanwhile, is increasing its funding for cities and towns to pursue so-called community-based obesity prevention, in an effort to gather data about which kinds of tactics work best."

Last night our condo association had its annual potluck. I overate. Now, why would a sensible, healthy eater who goes to exercise class 3 times a week, and eats 3-4 vegetables for lunch do that? Because everything tasted good and the fellowship was great, and it was 2 hours past my regular meal time. The artichoke dip was particularly wonderful both as an appetiser and a dessert. I'm not all that far removed from the village square in Romania.

So what about the government hitching a ride in your grocery cart or camping out in your pantry, telling you what to eat and when? This isn't about safe or nutritious food, you know. We're way past that. This is about control of every little aspect of your life.

I'm not sure if anyone understands the chemistry and biology and culture of obesity. But every time I read Junk Food Science by Sandy, I learn a little more. And she's not writing about food that's junk--it's the science.

Do you remember what you weighed in 7th grade?

I do. I was 5'3" and 114 lbs. by the end of the school year. We had "public" weigh-ins. I don't know how common that was, if it was the teacher's idea, the county or the state; it may have been included on our grade reports. I wasn't teased. Some were, and I'm sure it was a miserable experience for them. No one would put a child through that today. Or would they?

Arkansas has been held up as a national model for its childhood obesity program. The 4th annual report is now out. Junkfood was removed from the schools, nutrition and wellness was included in the curriculum, and exercise and physical activity were included for a recommended healthy lifestyle. The Arkansas Act included compulsory BMI screening with reports sent to parents. Even by the third report, no reduction in childhood obesity was shown, and by the fourth participation was down. It seems the counties with the fewest number of overweight children were showing the most underweight children, and there's concern that the intense focus on weight and a healthy lifestyle might actually be causing children to adopt unhealthy behavior!

Sandy at Junk Food Science has a complete run down on this Arkansas program, and has covered it before, citing studies that show BMI in childhood means nothing for health in adulthood and low-fat diets for children aren't good for their development. In fact, no one even knows what a healthy BMI is for children, and it was never meant to be a diagnostic tool for "good health." Also, there's concern that in a poor state, this unproven program has taken important dollars that could be better used elsewhere (math, science, reading, for example).

Since Act 1220 was enacted in 2003, it has failed to have any measurable effect on children’s weight status; it has failed to demonstrate meaningful improvement in their overall diets or physical activity levels; it has failed to demonstrate improved health outcomes; and there are growing indications that it’s having unintended consequences. Parents, healthcare and educational professionals, as well as taxpayers, might rightfully question if the costs for these school-based initiatives might be better utilized in efforts to help improve the future of Arkansas’ children.

Another really interesting read at Sandy's blog is on the myth of the thin Old Order Amish (Lessons from the Amish), those guys who eat healthy and get lots of exercise--like 12-16 hours a day!

It’s one of the most popular contemporary myths — and the foundation of present-day obesity public policies — that if we all lived rural lifestyles and did hard physical labor all day; ate homegrown, homecooked foods; and had none of today’s modern conveniences and electronics, we would all be thin. It’s a nostalgic vision of past eras ... but it’s not true.

Even living these idealized lifestyles, eating virtuously and physically active far beyond what most of us could imagine, the Old Order Amish are just as fat as the rest of the United States white population. In fact, the average BMIs of mature Amish women (over age 40) are 1-2 kg/m2 higher than those of other U.S. women the same age.

I think the jury is still out on why we're all getting so fat. Maybe we can blame global warming and President Bush.

Is there anything new in this study?

JAMA reports that decreased physical activity plays a critical role in the increase in childhood obesity in the July 16, 2008 issue, but doesn't really supply any evidence that activity and obesity are linked. Think back to your own childhood. Weren't you much more active at 10 than at 16 or 17? If they have data for the 1950s and 1960s, I'm betting it shows the same decrease, yet kids are fatter today.

I lived in two small towns--I walked (or ran) everywhere when I was a kid. I even rode my bicycle 5-10 miles to the next town to visit friends. I had a horse and went on trail rides--if I could catch him. I went to summer camp where we hiked. I earned extra money by detasseling corn (a gross, awful but very physical job). At 16 or 17, the automobile had taken over my life, and even though I could occasionally talk my mother into a ride to school, I had a driver's license for my social life.

At my class blog, I have a photo of a group of us on our bicycles ready to go on an overnight camp-out as Girl Scouts, then some photos of us four years later on a picnic to which we had driven. Which required more physical exertion--biking or stuffing our faces?

I'll let Sandy take this report apart line by line, she's good at that; for me and my peers, I'll just remind you that teens are pretty much the same today as we were in the 1950s. All this study does is document that 9 year olds are more active than 15 year olds in the U.S. They'll need to look for other causes for obesity, because teen girls have always had this pattern of activity. The conclusion is, of course, there is a need for a new government policy or program to address the problem. FEMA-tize the children.

My contribution

Like the heterosexual AIDS epidemic that didn't happen, the pediatric obesity epidemic has recently been proven to be a full blown media scare (I know, looking around you'd not think so). Recent studies reported in JAMA found no trends in BMI for children, plus the statistics they did have meant little since the BMI of children isn't stable due to age and growth spurts. The only thing that doesn't vary is media hype, causing you parents to rush to modify children's diets, sometimes eliminating important nutrients, or making the kids phobic about food. They probably need to push back from the computer, not the table, and go outside to play.

So based on my blog of June 11, I've created a poster which I'm offering to CDC, NIH, USDA, FDA, etc. etc., and all the churches, foundations, think tanks and social agencies eating large from this trough of government money for a disease that never came to dinner. See Junk Food Science for a much better analysis of what's going on in childhood obesity.